[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6d2eb853-60f4-73ee-a465-aaa4528c100f@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 20:46:08 +0200
From: Cezary Rojewski <cezary.rojewski@...el.com>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
Brent Lu <brent.lu@...el.com>, <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
CC: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@...ux.intel.com>,
Guennadi Liakhovetski <guennadi.liakhovetski@...ux.intel.com>,
Yong Zhi <yong.zhi@...el.com>,
Vamshi Krishna Gopal <vamshi.krishna.gopal@...el.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rander Wang <rander.wang@...el.com>,
"Bard Liao" <bard.liao@...el.com>,
Malik_Hsu <malik_hsu@...tron.corp-partner.google.com>,
Libin Yang <libin.yang@...el.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
Paul Olaru <paul.olaru@....nxp.com>,
"Curtis Malainey" <cujomalainey@...omium.org>,
Mac Chiang <mac.chiang@...el.com>,
Gongjun Song <gongjun.song@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ASoC: soc-acpi: add comp_ids field for machine
driver matching
On 2021-10-07 7:27 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
>>> struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *
>>> snd_soc_acpi_find_machine(struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *machines)
>>> {
>>> struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *mach;
>>> struct snd_soc_acpi_mach *mach_alt;
>>> - for (mach = machines; mach->id[0]; mach++) {
>>> - if (acpi_dev_present(mach->id, NULL, -1)) {
>>> + for (mach = machines; mach->id[0] || mach->comp_ids; mach++) {
>>
>> Such loops are hard to maintain i.e. 'comp_ids' acts here like a flex
>> array that follows 'id'. Removal of 'id' field and streamlining code to
>> only use 'comp_ids' should make this loop more intuitive.
>
> Changing all the tables adds more noise IMHO. There are 15 files and
> about 100 ids.
>
> This patch provides an opportunity to reduce duplication, that's good,
> but let's leave all the existing unique table entries alone, shall we?
>
Well, we could have mentioned files updated in the follow up patches
i.e. treat this patch as a 'preparation step'. In the long run, having
two places for id initialization will cost us more than updating all
those files.
Have no problem with leaving current patch as is if the end goal is
removal of 'id' field. In some future series I guess..
Czarek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists